Escobal v Garchitorena

GR 124644

February 5 2004

Second Division

J. Callejo Sr.

FACTS:

Petitioner is a graduate of the Philippine Military Academy, member of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Philippine Constabulary, as well as the Intelligence Group of the Philippine National
Police. He somehow got involved in a shooting incident that resulted in the death of Rodney Rafael N.
Nueca. He was thus charged, along with a certain Natividad Bombita Jr., of murder. Petitioner was
preventively suspended from the service. He was arrested by virtue of a search warrant. He leaded not
guilty and filed a Morion to Quash, as the court martial, not the RTC had jurisdiction over such cases.
Pending the resolution, he asked for reinstatement, but the RTC denied the same. He then filed a Motion
to Dismiss as the court allegedly lacked jurisdiction and should be with the Sandiganbayan. This was
denied and the prosecution was able to show that petitioner was not in the performance of his duties
during the shooting. The RTC issued an Order declaring that the petitioner committed the crime while not
on duty. However, in a motion for reconsideration, the Order was set aside and reconsidered that
petitioner was indeed in an official mission. Also, the RTC retained jurisdiction over petitioner under PD
1606 as amended by RA 7975.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC correctly retained jurisdiction.

HELD:

Yes. Under the law, even if the offender committed the crime charged in relation to his office but
occupies a position corresponding to a salary grade below "27," the proper Regional Trial Court or
Municipal Trial Court, as the case may be, shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the case. In this case, the
petitioner was a Police Senior Inspector, with salary grade "23." He was charged with homicide
punishable by reclusion temporal. Hence, the RTC had exclusive jurisdiction over the crime charged
conformably to Sections 20 and 32 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No.
7691.

The petitioner’s contention that R.A. No. 7975 should not be applied retroactively has no legal basis. It
bears stressing that R.A. No. 7975 is a substantive procedural law which may be applied retroactively.